Vpn tracker vpn gateway customize port3/16/2023 ![]() A good example is FTP, which uses IP addresses and port numbers within the protocol to identify a server and client socket for data transfer. ![]() However, port forwarding is not sufficient for all applications. Supposed to work, but didn’t in all our tests all the time.Īll the SSL gateways we looked at except for AEP and Netilla provide some port-forwarding functionality (see graphic, above). Rules down to the URL level, one of the characteristics of SSL VPN technology, aren't available when using network extension and port forwarding. When port forwarding and network extension come into play, SSL VPNs no longer offer such access control to applications because they are no longer aware of the underlying application. One promoted strength of SSL VPNs is the ability to look into the application layer and give detailed access control to the network manager. Unfortunately, permissions to lower browser security are not always available.Ī second problem with port forwarding and network extension is security. For example, a user sitting in front of Microsoft's Internet Explorer with browser security set to "high" would not be able to use any of these features. This raises browser compatibility issues, operating system problems and security concerns. To accomplish port forwarding or network extension, the SSL VPN gateway must push out software to the end user's workstation. The further down this direct access path you go, though, the more complicated and risky your SSL VPN deployment will be. Port forwarding lets you protect well-behaved applications on known servers, and network extension gives broader access via tunneling to an entire network. Some applications cannot be translated, and SSL VPN gateways have two mechanisms for getting direct access into the network: port forwarding and network extension. So you might be left with the difficult choice of a rich Web-based messaging application that not everyone can use, or a less powerful and feature-poor Web mail system that is friendlier to unusual or older browsers. As our interoperability testing indicates, these rich applications have their own problems. Unfortunately, Symantec's built-in Web mail feature doesn't work if you have a lot of mail in your mailbox.Įven SSL VPN gateways that don't support a built-in Web mail tool would let you connect to a corporate messaging application, such as Microsoft Outlook Web Access, IBM's iNotes or the open source SquirrelMail. For example, Symantec and F5 gateways include e-mail application translation - so users can read and send mail via an application running on the gateway. Supports basic and additional applicationsīecause the products we tested offer such a variety of options, for you to pick the right gateway for your network you'll need a firm understanding of which applications you need translation for and be able to rank them in terms of importance. F5 and NetScreen also included terminal emulator support for telnet and SSH, but they struck out because their emulators didn't work more than 25% of the time. We tested all but the IBM emulations and had good results. Netilla was the only offering to include translation for both Windows Terminal Services and a extensive array of terminal emulators, including telnet, Secure Shell (SSH) and IBM 3270. With F5, Netscreen and Symantec each offering a subset of the three. Nokia was the only one of the stronger products to support application translation for FTP, Network File System ( NFS) and Microsoft file servers. AEP and Whale were the weakest in this area, supporting the smallest number of application translators and proxies. When it comes to proxying and application translation (see "SSL terms and conditions"), we found big differences between products (see graphic, below). SSL VPNs are deployed for bigger, more compelling reasons such as complex application translation of Web-to-e-mail servers, corporate directory and calendar systems, e-commerce applications, file sharing, and remote system management. In some cases, SSL VPNs must provide secure access to the applications that are served up as static Web pages on HTTP servers, but taking Web traffic in one port and sending it out another is not where these products bring their greatest value. ![]() The biggest difference between SSL VPNs and traditional IP Security remote access VPNs is that the IPSec standard requires installation of client code on the end user's system, while SSL VPNs focus on making applications available through any Web browser.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |